From this story about the proposal to split Colorado’s Electoral votes proportianally (a stupid idea if I ever heard one, but that’s for another debate)…
I can’t :rolleyes: enough…
Zev Steinhardt
Doesn’t it sort of defeat the purpose of an electoral college if the votes are split up?
The Rebublicans are more correct. The measure has been primarily funded by a Democrat from California. Mr. Gates is being disingenuous.
Colorado has traditionally been Republican at the presidential level. Since 1948, we’ve gone for the Democratic candidate only thrice. The state is in play this year, partly thanks to a wide open Senate race, and I suspect that will cause some Democrats to vote against the measure.
I hope.
… and hence my parenthetical comment. But I don’t want to focus on the merits or demerits of the actual proposal. I just felt the need to comment about the electoral paranoia that seems to sweeping everyone this year.
Zev Steinhardt
What you say may be true, but the Republicans are less correct because they believe this is a plot to shift all 9 votes, and not 4 or 5, from Bush to Kerry. That sentiment is pure lunacy.
Yeah, you right, but I suspect that sentence is a reporter’s mistake in paraphrasing. I can’t believe that even Colorado Republicans could be that mixed up.
Sorry Zev, wasn’t trying to hijack your thread.
BTW, here’s a fixed link.
Yes and no.
Yes: A state gives up some of its clout when it does something like this.
No: The constitution explicitly says that states are free to determine how electors are selected. It is not an inherent feature of the EC to have it be a winner-takes-all system.
That’s OK, Lord Ashtar. And thanks for providing a fixed link (I wasn’t even aware that mine was broken.)
Zev Steinhardt
Canadian trivia geek pun: That’s not a Fixed Link – it doesn’t lead to Prince Edward Island! 
Not really. Or rather- it depends. CA has the most EC votes, but it has exactly 0 clout. It is a given it is going to vote for Kerry. GWB has even taken some cheap shots and given us a few kicks in the face so that GOP states can get some extra bucks from us.
Now, sure, CA is going something like 55/40 Kerry/Bush. So why should W bother? But he could change that to 50/45 Kerry/Bush- and that’s a LOT of EC votes if proportional.
No, that wouldn’t be a big enough draw. If they changed it like that, the 5 vote difference he might be able to pick up wouldn’t be worth bothering with. As is, California might one day be a swing state, in which case it would be very important. If states start vote splitting, no state would be worth focusing on and all would lose their clout.
I rather oppose this for another reason: The winner-take-all system excludes fringe parties.
And see, I would be in favor of states being able to split their electoral votes. If nothing else, it would allow more states the opportunity to be swing states.
Does anyone know if this can be done anywhere? I think that Maine can do it, and am unsure of any others.
Maine and Nebraska each give one electoral vote to the candidate that wins each congressional district, and two to the state-wide winner. To my knowledge, neither state has ever actually split the vote - since they’ve gone to this plan, one candidate has always won all the state’s votes.
Not entirely. The less populous states would still have a disproportionate number of electors, which is one of the purposes of the EC.
I am very much in favor of more states adopting the Maine/Nebraska system of choosing electors.
This Canadian geek found that pretty funny! 
As you know, each state gets one EV for each House member and one EV for each Senator.
Maine and Nebraska, IIRC, both apportion their electoral votes as follows: the winner of the vote in each Congressional district wins the EV for that district, and the top vote-getter for the state gets the other two. I’m not sure if that has ever led to a split vote in either state, though it could happen in Maine this time.
At any rate, that’s not what is being proposed for Colorado, where it’s about dividing up the 9 EVs proportionately, rather than by CD.